More Trees than 20 Years Ago

NASA Happily Reports the Earth is Greener, with More Trees than 20 Years Ago

By
Joe Martino edited by James Williams
 

Reflect On:

Amidst the climate alarmism that is sometimes misplaced, there are stories that paint a different picture.
Why are we only getting the ‘bad news’ stories about the climate all the time? Is it politically convenient? Does it fit narratives? Is it always true? Are we only being told one side? Are we meant to remain in fear?

The Facts:

  • Thanks to China and India, human-induced ‘greening’ has increased by 5% across the Earth!
  • A published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate showed that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%.
  • Another study in the journal Nature Geoscience confirmed that climate models were faulty. As one of the authors put it, “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models.”
  • Findings fromthe University of Alabama-Huntsville showed that the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

Polar Bears:

According to data collected by the US federal government, polar bears along the entire west coast of Baffin Island are ‘stable.’ On the south-eastern side of the island (around the Nunavut capital of Iqaluit) polar bears have even experienced a ‘likely increase.’ It is only on the island’s north-eastern corner — in a management area that meets Greenland — that polar bears are suspected to be in decline.

Greener World

From the topic of this article, our world is literally a greener place than it was 20 years ago to data from NASA satellites with the cause being accredited to human-induced activity in China and India.
The point highlighted here is what we hear in the media is typically only one side of the picture which does not give an accurate representation of what is going on. For years now, Collective-Evolution has been reporting on environmental issues from a grounded perspective.
Looking at data, looking beyond the politics and simply at what’s happening. This approach shows you things are troubling in certain areas like pollution, air quality, EMF exposure and so forth, but the number one climate story we always hear about, C02 warming the atmosphere, simply does not hold water from the perspectives of many scientists and it hasn’t for the 10 years we have been reporting on it.
I (Joe Martino) recall a conversation I had with Gregg Braden where we were discussing research about the climate and what the data is TRULY showing. Amidst all the C02 alarmism I asked “Gregg… it appears to me that it’s more likely we’re headed into a global cooling period than a warming period.” He responded with “that’s precisely what the data shows, and it appears humanity is suffering from amnesia when it comes to the cycles of climate.”

The bottom line is, the majority don’t know the truth and the news is actually a lot better than what we’re being told. The challenge is, it’s more beneficial for power structures and business to keep us in fear.

FOR FULL ARTICLE CLICK THIS LINK

Chimes Media is viewer funded.

If you would be kind enough to donate please do so here: https://chimes.media/donations/
Please subscribe at https://www.subscribestar.com/chimes-media]]>

NOAA Caught Adjusting Big Freeze out of Existence

by JAMES DELINGPOLE 20 Feb 2018 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again been caught exaggerating ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data. This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the north-eastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history. If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was nothing particularly unusual about this winter’s cold weather which caused sharks to freeze in the ocean and iguanas to drop out of trees. Here is NOAA’s January 2018 chart for Northeast U.S. – an area which includes New England along with NY, PA, NJ, DE and MD. North East US Temps You’d never guess from it that those regions had just experienced record-breaking cold, would you? That’s because, as Paul Homewood has discovered, NOAA has been cooking the books. Yet again – presumably for reasons more to do with ideology than meteorology – NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were. We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda. Homewood first smelt a rat when he examined the New York data sets. He was particularly puzzled at NOAA’s treatment of the especially cold winter that ravaged New York in 2013/14, which he describes here: The cold weather really began on Jan 2nd, when an Arctic front descended across much of the country, and extended well into March. The NWS wrote at the end of the winter: The winter of 2013-14 finished as one of the coldest winters in recent memory for New York State.  Snowfall across Western and North Central New York was above normal for many areas, and in some locations well above normal. This winter comes on the heels of two previous mild winters, making the cold and snow this winter feel that much harsher. Temperatures this winter finished below normal every month, and the January through March timeframe finished at least 4 degrees below normal for the two primary climate stations of Western New York (Buffalo and Rochester)….. Relentless cold continued through the month of January across the region. So why, he wondered, did NOAA have this marked down as only the 30th coldest winter (since 1895) on its New York State charts, with a mean temperature of 16.9F? Homewood compared the local records for January 1943 and January 2014 – months which, according to NOAA’s charts, had very similar average temperatures. What he found was that NOAA’s charts were deeply inaccurate. The 2014 local temperatures had been adjusted upwards by NOAA and the 1943 local temperatures downwards. Mean Temps On average the mean temperatures in Jan 2014 were 2.7F less than in 1943. Yet, according to NOAA, the difference was only 0.9F. Somehow, NOAA has adjusted past temperatures down, relatively, by 1.8F. Now, Homewood has given the same treatment to the most recent Big Freeze – the winter of 2017/2018. Yet again, he has found that NOAA’s arbitrary adjustments tell a lie. They claim that January 2018 was warmer in the New York region than January 1943, when the raw data from local stations tells us this just isn’t true. So at the three sites of Ithaca, Auburn and Geneva, we find that January 2018 was colder than January 1943 by 1.0, 1.7 and 1.3F respectively. Yet NOAA say that the division was 2.1F warmer last month. NOAA’s figure makes last month at least 3.1F warmer in comparison with 1943 than the actual station data warrants.

He concludes:

Clearly NOAA’s highly homogenised and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the actual station data. And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the US is any better? Well indeed. The key point here is that while NOAA frequently makes these adjustments to the raw data, it has never offered a convincing explanation as to why they are necessary. Nor yet, how exactly their adjusted data provides a more accurate version of the truth than the original data. One excuse NOAA’s apologists make is that weather stations are subject to changing environmental conditions. For example, when the station sited at Syracuse in 1929 was located at what was originally just a sparse aerodrome. Since then, however, as Homewood notes, it has grown into a large international airport with two runways servicing two million passengers a year. Its weather station readings therefore will certainly have been corrupted by the Urban Heat Island effect: that is, its temperature readings will have been artificially elevated by the warmth from the surrounding development and aircraft engines. So you’d think, wouldn’t you, that to compensate for this NOAA would adjust the recent temperatures downwardsInstead, for no obvious reasons, it has adjusted them upwards. This is a scandal. NOAA’s climate gatekeepers are political activists not honest scientists and the U.S. taxpayer has no business funding their propaganda.

Read More

Personal Comment

Whatever the pros and cons for or against climate change. I have found it disturbing how many of those in favour of the man-made climate change argument tend to be so authoritarian and vindictive towards those who hold a different opinion. The vitriol detracts from their case as it seems more about forcing you to comply than persuading through reason and logic. It begs the questions: Why are you so determined to make me comply? What is your ulterior motive?]]>